Subject: Tomatoes thought to be poisonous?

From: [email-masked] (Chris Gonna' Find Ray Charles Tate)
Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 12:01:14 GMT

I've heard various (not necessarily reliable) reports that people used
to think that tomatoes were poisonous.  In fact, I've been told that
somebody once tried to poison George Washington with one (almost
certainly apocryphal, in the late 1700's...).

Now, tomatoes are a New World food - nobody but the native Americans
knew they even existed until around 1500.  So, I'm slightly dubious
that they would have been considered deadly poison in any widespread
manner.

Does anyone know the real story here?

---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Tate             |  "So he dropped the heart - 
MSD, Inc.                    |     the floor's clean."
[email-masked]    |                 - Sidney Harris

---

From: [email-masked] (Frank Young)
Date: 16 May 1994 13:54:24 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>Does anyone know the real story here?

When tomatoes began to arrive in Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth 
centuries, they were identified as poisonous because the plants resembled 
those of the nightshade family in the Old World, all of which ARE 
poisonous -- and, indeed, the tomato is a variety of nightshade. The 
assertion about Washington comes from a short story first published in 
the 20's or 30's -- I used to have the citation, but long ago lost it -- 
which has migrated from fiction to fact, which is so easy to do in our 
new age of ignorance about history.

-- 
                                     Regards, Frank Young
    [email-masked]                                    703-532-6284    
    6166 Leesburg Pike, Suite B-12,  Falls Church, Virginia 22044-2343    
    "Videmus nunc per speculum in ‘nigmate.... Nunc cognosco ex parte"

---

From: [email-masked] (Dorothy J Heydt)
Date: 16 May 1994 16:04:36 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,

>poisonous -- and, indeed, the tomato is a variety of nightshade. ...

And the _leaves_ are poisonous.  Most common European food plants 
have edible leaves; you eat the turnip, you eat the turnip greens;
et cetera.  But tomato leaves will do you serious harm--potato
leaves too, for that matter, which is why it took major efforts
to get the potato accepted as food in parts of Europe.  (Is it
true what I heard once, that some Graf forced some peasants to
grow a field of potatoes and, when they were grown, forced the
peasants at sword-point to eat the potatoes and stay in their
seats till they were convinced they weren't poisoned?)

Dorothy J. Heydt
[email-masked]	
University of California
Berkeley

---

From: [email-masked] (Keith F. Lynch)
Date: 16 May 1994 22:24:36 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
Dorothy J Heydt <[email-masked]> wrote:
> But tomato leaves will do you serious harm ...

What harm?  I've eaten whole tomato plants, including the leaves.
(These were small plants, with no tomatoes yet, if it matters.)
-- 
Keith Lynch, [email-masked]

f p=2,3:2 s q=1 x "f f=3:2 q:f*f>p!'q  s q=p#f" w:q p,?$x\8+1*8

---

From: irina@rempt (Irina Rempt)
Date: Tue, 17 May 94 00:35:28 CET

> certainly apocryphal, in the late 1700's...).
 
 [snip]
 
> Does anyone know the real story here?

Not the one about George Washington. But when tomatoes, and potatoes,
were first imported to Europe people used to eat the leaves and flowers
instead of the fruit/root, and those *are* poisonous (it's a kind of
nightshade).

- Irina

------------------------- Irina Rempt-Drijfhout ------------------------
[email-masked]                                     +31 23 258090
-------------- Kloosterstraat 34 1.2, 2021 VN Haarlem, NL --------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 17 May 1994 22:54:41 GMT

As far as I know, tomatoes were thought to be poisonous even up until the time
of Washington in this counttry at least.  The person who actually PROVED they
wer not was Thomas Jefferson who ate one in public to prove his point.  I think
I can back this up with some kind of reference if need be, because I rem,eber
reading it somewhere in  bioghraphy of him.  
Hope yjis may settle you query
E. Kokotos Leonardi

,,ni  .yh////A Nd btw, homjonmh  eNEw Worldt In article <[email-masked]>,
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Frank Young)
Date: 18 May 1994 02:55:47 GMT

>Hope yjis may settle you query

Take that one to alt.folklore.urban, not matter where you found it -- 
Fawn Brodie, probably [almost everything else in her book is historically 
inaccurate; better to rely on Dumas Malone for real scholarship].

There are many seventeenth and eighteenth century recipes -- Italian, 
Spanish, French -- that call for tomatoes. They are not called for 
UNCOOKED until the nineteenth century; leading to >>my<< own speculation 
that cooking was thought to negate any possible harm, like tapioca.

---

From: [email-masked] (Vincent E. Vielhaber)
Date: 18 May 1994 00:21:32 -0400

> Does anyone know the real story here?

I remember a story from an episode of the Frugal Gourmet regarding Thomas
Jefferson and tomatoes.  It was during the 'Cooks American' season.  I just
checked the book, but unfortunately he doesn't tell the whole story there.
As I recall, in the late 1700's at Monticello he grew and ate tomatoes, both
cooked and raw, while the rest (most of the rest) of the country thought
them to be poison (don't believe the origin of the poison part was
mentioned), but he enjoyed them for years before people started catching on,
and even criticised him for it.  
I have the episode on videotape around here somewhere, but the poor labeling
system I have (none really) it'd take a long while to find it.  If I do, I
will post a followup.

Vince.
-- 
======================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH   email: [email-masked]  flame-mail: /dev/null
             220+ Coordinator Michigan Area Repeater Council
# include <std/disclaimers.h> 
======================================================================

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 18 May 94 10:16:58 GMT

> seats till they were convinced they weren't poisoned?)

There's an account somewhere that I read (possibly in Isaac D'Israeli's
_Curiosities_of_Literature_ ) about introducing potatoes to France.  The
peasants wouldn't touch them.  Finally, a field full was grown, under guard,
and the word was spread about that this was a special delicacy reserved for the 
aristocracy only.  All it took then was curiously lax security in the middle 
of the night and the peasants helped themselves to this new luxury dish.

I don't know if this story is true: I'll have a look tonight to see if I can 
find it.  

Malcolm farmer
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Frank Young)
Date: 16 May 1994 13:54:24 GMT

---

From: [email-masked] (Dorothy J Heydt)
Date: 16 May 1994 16:04:36 GMT

Dorothy J. Heydt

---

From: [email-masked] (Jane Beckman)
Date: 7 Jun 94 23:21:57 GMT

We could put together an entire FAQ just on the history and
mythos of "poisonous tomatos," I suspect.

I still think the most prize tomato legend was in an 1870's
health food cookbook, where the author claims they will make
your teeth fall out.
--
  Jilara   [[email-masked]]
That's how freedom will end: not with a bang, but with a rustle of file
folders.  If you love any of your rights, defend all of them!
-Joe Chew, on the net

---

From: [email-masked] (Jane Beckman)
Date: 7 Jun 94 23:27:29 GMT

>There are peoples who are highly allergic to tomatoes. These people get a very
>swollen tongue (like having a wasp sting there) and it may be fatal.
>
I have met a few people who react exactly the same way to
mangos.  One also gets oozing sores on her lips.  I wonder if
there is a genetic basis for *how* one reacts to certain
foods?  

Me, I just eat scallops and go into anophylactic shock.  No
problem with clams or oysters, just scallops.  Met another
woman who also had this problem.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 8 Jun 94 18:00:41 -0500

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Jane Beckman) writes:
> mangos.  One also gets oozing sores on her lips. 

Mangoes can be a real problem, esp. for people who have been sensitized
to poison oak/ivy/sumac... they are all members of the Anacardiaceae, the
poison ivy family, and they can and do cross-react... :-(  Green (unroasted)
cashews can also be a problem (same family), and handling objects made of
true lacquer...  I have not, however, heard of anyone with a problem with
pistachios (also Anacardiaceae), but I'll bet someone, somewhere, is very
allergic to them.

 I wonder if
> there is a genetic basis for *how* one reacts to certain

Yup.  Seems to be.  If you've got a parent with allergies, you're
more likely to have them yourself...  If you've got two parents with
allergies, you're in for a Real Fun Time, most likely...

Kay Klier  Biology Dept  UNI
(who is allergic to, among other things, dust mites, asparagus, peaches,
nectarines, strawberries, the entire Cucurbitaceae (cucumbers/squash/melon),
eggplant, and seafood...  :-(  )

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul J. Gans)
Date: 9 Jun 1994 00:57:15 GMT

[email-masked] wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Jane Beckman) writes:
: >>There are peoples who are highly allergic to tomatoes. These people get a very
: >>swollen tongue (like having a wasp sting there) and it may be fatal.
: >>
: > I have met a few people who react exactly the same way to
: > mangos.  One also gets oozing sores on her lips. 

: Mangoes can be a real problem, esp. for people who have been sensitized
: to poison oak/ivy/sumac... they are all members of the Anacardiaceae, the
: poison ivy family, and they can and do cross-react... :-(  Green (unroasted)
: cashews can also be a problem (same family), and handling objects made of
: true lacquer...  I have not, however, heard of anyone with a problem with
: pistachios (also Anacardiaceae), but I'll bet someone, somewhere, is very
: allergic to them.

:  I wonder if
: > there is a genetic basis for *how* one reacts to certain
: > foods?  

: Yup.  Seems to be.  If you've got a parent with allergies, you're
: more likely to have them yourself...  If you've got two parents with
: allergies, you're in for a Real Fun Time, most likely...

: Kay Klier  Biology Dept  UNI
: (who is allergic to, among other things, dust mites, asparagus, peaches,
: nectarines, strawberries, the entire Cucurbitaceae (cucumbers/squash/melon),
: eggplant, and seafood...  :-(  )

Good grief!  Chemical warfare!  Plants vs. people!  

Is it time to give up eating natural food?   :=)

    ---- Paul J. Gans  [[email-masked]]

PS:  For the humor insensitive, as the parent of a sensitive (in both
senses of the word) former child now grown up and coping, Kay Klier has
all my sympathy.  Good luck and be careful!

    ----- PJG

---

From: [email-masked] (David)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 06:43:01 GMT

Raw potatoes are not toxic but are a little hard on the system as they
are undigestable.  You have to cook them to transform the (Amylon-In
hebrew) into a usable starch.

David L. Hirschberg             [email-masked]
Department of Neurobiology      972-834-4131 (international fax)
Weizmann Institute of Science
Rehovot, 76100  Israel

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 9 Jun 94 12:00:04 -0500

> Good grief!  Chemical warfare!  Plants vs. people!  

There's an (IMHO) great book on the subject:  Timothy Johns, 1990.  With 
Bitter Herbs They Shall Eat It: Chemical Ecology and the Origins of
Human Diet and Medicine.  Univ. Arizona Press, 0-8165-1023-7.

It's a bit scholarly in places, but Johns makes a convincing set of
arguements on how people learned to eat/use poisonous plants, and gives
detoxification methods like boiling, roasting, leaching, eating with
clay (excellent adsorbent!), etc.    One of the most thought-provoking
books I've come across in awhile... the question I've *always* wondered
about with things like chocolate is "how did they ever figure out how
to prepare the stuff?  The starting point is ok, but nothing great,
the fermentation steps stink badly, and the final processing is tedious..."
Or "How did people figure out that potatoes were ok, but the "little tomatoes"
that potato plants make as fruits are quite poisonous.  Johns makes a
good case that kids were probably the main victims of plant poisonings
when a new plant was introduced in the diet... their smaller size makes
them more vulnerable, and they are also more expendable in a society...
(gross, I know...)

Kay Klier  Biology Dept  UNI
(yup, my economic botany students who used the book liked it too)

---

From: [email-masked] (Chris Gonna' Find Ray Charles Tate)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 19:13:22 GMT

>the fermentation steps stink badly, and the final processing is tedious..."

The one that really gets me is olives.  How on earth did people ever
catch on to the fact that if you do all sorts of strange things to
them, you wind up with something edible?  :-)

(I mean, really.  Olive preparation is pretty involved, and the raw
fruit isn't exactly likely to strike someone as palatable....)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Tate             |  "There are 0 grams of fat in Mountain Dew.
MSD, Inc.                    |    That means it's good for you, right?"
[email-masked]    |         - Mike Wellman, in c.s.m.p

---

From: [email-masked] ("Mary Branscombe")
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 17:36:45 GMT

>   Jilara   [[email-masked]]

there's certainly a genetic basis for how some mediterranean-based 
races react to broad beans, which are poisonous to them. 
Mary MerryTail

---

From: [email-masked] (Laurel Halbany)
Date: 18 Jun 94 13:07:00 GMT

-=> Quoting Alf Christophersen to All <=-

AC> There are peoples who are highly allergic to tomatoes. These people
AC> get a very swollen tongue (like having a wasp sting there) and it may
AC> be fatal. 

Perhaps it is a reaction to the high acid level in tomatoes? I know
many people who cannot eat certain fruits (citrus and strawberries)
because the acid causes the reaction you describe.

... Marriage has many pains, but celibacy has no pleasures.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

----
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Telnet hal9k.com or 152.160.13.1     | 10 dial-ins, speeds up to 28.8kb  |
| FREE Usenet mail and news for you!   | Call +1 313 663 4173 or 663 3959  |
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

---

From: [email-masked] (Laurel Halbany)
Date: 18 Jun 94 13:07:00 GMT

-=> Quoting Jane Beckman to All <=-

JB> I have met a few people who react exactly the same way to
JB> mangos.  One also gets oozing sores on her lips.  I wonder if
JB> there is a genetic basis for *how* one reacts to certain
JB> foods?  

Many allergies (not just food allergies) are transmitted genetically,
although you can develop some (like milk allergy). Sometimes these
can be treated, though; my little brother used to be very allergic
to milk and eggs, but 'sensitization' treatment over several years
solved the problem.

... Our national flower is the concrete cloverleaf.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

----

---

From: [email-masked] (Sandra P. Hoffman)
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 1994 22:38:29 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>to milk and eggs, but 'sensitization' treatment over several years

The predisposition to allergies is genetic. Specific allergies
can be developed through sensitization either in utero by the
mother eating foods she herself is allergic too, during the
newborn period by use of highly allergenic (milk based or soya
based) formulas, or if a breastfeeding mother eats foods she
herself is allergic to, or through the introduction of solid
foods at too early an age. I believe that only a small number
of children develop food allergies if neither parent is allergic,
about 1/3 of children born to parents where one parent is allergic
will be allergic, and about 2/3 of children born to parents where
both parents are allergic will be allergic themselves.

If anyone really, really wants, I can get some references for this.
But it is hot and I'm tired so only ask if you really, really want them.
And maybe send e-mail as this seems to be getting quite off-topic
for this group.
sph

-- 
"Return, good Catesby, to the gracious duke:" Shakespeare, Richard III,
                           III, vii, 65
                    [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] ([email-masked])
Date: 21 Jun 1994 16:47:29 +0930

Sandra P. Hoffman ([email-masked]) wrote:

: In article <[email-masked]>,
: Laurel Halbany <[email-masked]> wrote:
: >-=> Quoting Jane Beckman to All <=-
: >
: >JB> I have met a few people who react exactly the same way to
: >JB> mangos.  One also gets oozing sores on her lips.  I wonder if
: >JB> there is a genetic basis for *how* one reacts to certain
: >JB> foods?  
: >
: >Many allergies (not just food allergies) are transmitted genetically,
: >although you can develop some (like milk allergy). Sometimes these
: >can be treated, though; my little brother used to be very allergic
: >to milk and eggs, but 'sensitization' treatment over several years
: >solved the problem.

: The predisposition to allergies is genetic. Specific allergies
: can be developed through sensitization either in utero by the
: mother eating foods she herself is allergic too, during the
: newborn period by use of highly allergenic (milk based or soya
: based) formulas, or if a breastfeeding mother eats foods she
: herself is allergic to, or through the introduction of solid
: foods at too early an age. I believe that only a small number
: of children develop food allergies if neither parent is allergic,
: about 1/3 of children born to parents where one parent is allergic
: will be allergic, and about 2/3 of children born to parents where
: both parents are allergic will be allergic themselves.

nb: these ratios (1/3, 2/3) don't bear resemblance to any pattern of known
genetic inheritance. Sandra, do you mean allergies are due to 
1) autosomal dominant
2)  "    "   recessive
3) X-linked dominant
4) X-linked recessive
5) epistasis of multiple alleles
6) other, and which ...

The only reason I can think for your ratios is if a recessive homozygous
condition is lethal, which geneticists would have probably noticed...
 Pray tell us how you obtain your amazing figures :-)
It is well known that (genetic - o' course) enzyme deficiencies, e.g. lactase
preventing proper milk digestion, can be circumvented by simply avoiding the
allergen responsible, i.e. not taking raw milk. The same goes for any
allergy really. Once the environmental stressor/allergen disappears, so
does the allergy! What other treatment would you recommend?

[email-masked] {Bernard S Gannat}

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 26 Jun 94 22:30:33 -0500

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] ([email-masked]) writes:
> : The predisposition to allergies is genetic. ...
> : I believe that only a small number
> genetic inheritance. 
   
   Although these do not reflect typical "simple mendelian inheritance",
   such figures are not at all out of line for population genetics.  
   (And no, I don't know the values from the literature for allergies,
   but allele frequencies may not be equal in all populations, and
   populations may not be at Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.

Sandra, do you mean allergies are due to 
> allergen responsible, i.e. not taking raw milk. 
    Lactose intolerance is not, strictly speaking, an allergy, since
    it does not cause the same physiological responses as say, peaches
    do to (ah-choo!) me...  no cascade of histamines, increased IgE, etc.

The same goes for any
> does the allergy! What other treatment would you recommend?

    Not quite.  Once the allergen is eliminated from the environment,
    you still have the allergy, just nothing to provoke the response.  
    You haven't eliminated the disease, just the symptoms.  Alas.

    Well, I hadn't intended to turn this into a genetics or allergy
    seminar... so I'll get off my soapbox now and go take my antihistamines...
    ;-)

    Ob rec.food.historic --  has anyone ever looked at food taboos and
    tried to correlate them with prevalence of allergies in a population?
    For instance, if I recall correctly, shellfish are forbidden under
    Jewish dietary law.  Although shellfish are commonly associated with
    outbreaks of bacterial and viral diseases, they are also potent
    allergens, commonly causing anaphylaxis.   What's the proportion of
    shellfish allergies in people of middle eastern ancestry?  And,
    since peanuts are similarly "potent", are there African cultures
    in which peanuts are taboo?

---

From: [email-masked] (Sandra P. Hoffman)
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 16:39:42 GMT

Sorry for some reason my site didn't get the original response to my
post just Kay's response to the response.

>> nb: these ratios (1/3, 2/3) don't bear resemblance to any pattern of known

I am not a geneticist, noe even a scientist.

>> 5) epistasis of multiple alleles

I have no idea what you are talking about.

>From reading literature on allergies and breastfeeding. I was motivated
by having allergic children who were reacting to substances in my breastmilk.
I also counselled breastfeeding women for four years. We generally dealt
with the practicalities rather than the precise scientific reasons.
For instance, when being asked by parents of a a very fussy child, or
a child with eczema what they are doing wrong, it helps to know if
one or both parents have food allergies. The precise mechanism of how
the allergies are transmitted is not as useful in these circumstances 
as knowing that if both
parents are allergic there is a good chance that eliminating food the
mother is allergic to will resolve the problems the infant is having. 

You could find the same information by doing a literature search on the 
subject of allergies. I would reccomend starting with Breastfeeding Abstracts.
That is where I saw the study that I was quoting from memory.
You could then, perhaps take the matter up with the doctors doing the
studies.

>> does the allergy! What other treatment would you recommend?

I dealt with it by eliminating the allergen. Lactose intolerance and milk
allergy, as Kay has mentioned are different. A fully breastfed baby
will not experience a lactose intolerance to its mother's milk except in very
rare cases, although
in the case of a mother overproducing milk her baby may experience lactose
overload. It is, however, not unusual for fully breastfed infants to
be allergic to cow milk proteins in their mother's milk. The suggested
response to this is for the mother to stop drinking Cow's milk. One study
I have read also suggests that a pregnant woman avoid foods she is known to be
even mildly allergic to as it seems the baby can be sensitized in utero.
I'm still not quite sure what this has to do with rec.food.historic
unless we want to start a discussion of historical patterns of infant
feeding. 

sph

---

From: [email-masked] (Laurel Halbany)
Date: 6 Jul 94 20:45:00 GMT

-=> Quoting [email-masked] to All <=-

Sy> The only reason I can think for your ratios is if a recessive
Sy> homozygous condition is lethal, which geneticists would have probably
Sy> noticed... Pray tell us how you obtain your amazing figures :-)

The figures I have seen state that if one parent has an allergy,
the offspring has a 50/50 chance of inheriting it. 

Sy> It is well known that (genetic - o' course) enzyme deficiencies, e.g.
Sy> lactase preventing proper milk digestion, can be circumvented by simply
Sy> avoiding the allergen responsible, i.e. not taking raw milk. The same
Sy> goes for any allergy really. Once the environmental stressor/allergen
Sy> disappears, so does the allergy! What other treatment would you
Sy> recommend? 

Desensitization works for some allergies. It generally does not work
for lactose intolerance, which is not an "allergy" per se. (As you
probably know, lactose intolerance is the norm for humanity worldwide;
most people's bodies don't need to eat milk after infancy, so they
stop manufacturing lactase. Nor is it limited to the intake of
"raw milk," but usually is a reaction to most dairy products.)

... You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

----